DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 9, and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takemoto (US 2012/0302340).
Claims 1 and 13-14: Takemoto discloses an information processing system, the information processing system comprising circuitry (including non-transitory machine-readable storage medium which stores computer software which, when executed by a computer (Figs. 1-5, ¶ 6, 8, 144, Claim 1), cause the computer to perform an information processing method) configured for performing the information processing method comprising: storing a value of a control setting (for example difficulty level) for an information processing system (5)(Figs. 1-2, ¶ 52-55, 115-117, 122-123); executing first software on the information processing system, wherein the first software is a video game (¶ 45-47, 53, 60); updating, during execution of the first software, the value of the control setting in dependence upon an input instruction received via second software (¶ 90) executed on a portable electronic device (6)(Figs. 1, 3-5, ¶ 51, 65, 99-112), wherein the control setting is a control setting associated with the first software and used by the information processing system when executing the first software (¶ 99-112, 115-117, 122-123); and generating content for provision to a user in dependence upon the execution of the first software and the value of the control setting (Figs. 7-9, see above, ¶ 128-139).
Claim 3: Takemoto teaches wherein the method comprises controlling one or more gameplay elements of the video game in dependence upon a second input instruction (¶ 44, 48-50, 107-110).
Claim 4: Takemoto teaches wherein the second input instruction is received via a controller (Fig. 1 elements 7a-b), a camera, or a microphone communicatively coupled with the information processing system (¶ 44, 48-50, 107-110).
Claim 6: Takemoto teaches wherein the control setting includes a setting to control an accessibility function of the content (¶ 102-112).
Claim 9: Takemoto teaches wherein the control setting includes a video game setting (¶ 102-112).
Claim 11: Takemoto teaches wherein the input instruction defines a value to replace a current value of the control setting or wherein the input instruction defines a value to modify a current value of the control setting (¶ 51-55, 65, 99-112, 115-117, 122-123, emphasis on ¶ 111).
Claim 12: Takemoto teaches wherein the method comprises updating the value of the control setting when the input instruction is received independent of a current state of the video game (¶ 9, 26, 111, 113).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takemoto (US 2012/0302340) in view of Ge (US 2019/0060758).
Claim 2: Takemoto teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the second software includes an Application Programming Interface, API. Takemoto at least teaches that various modifications and variations can be devised (¶ 148). Furthermore, an analogous art of Ge teaches client devices or portable electronic devices that include software comprising Application Programing Interface (API) to capture game inputs via a graphical user interface from a user (¶ 40, 78, 104). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the software of the portable electronic device of Takemoto with the API means of Ge because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of capturing gaming inputs via a graphical user interface in which at least Takemoto is intended (see above, ¶ 100-113, Fig. 7). Such a modification enhances the immersive experience of the user (Ge - ¶ 40, 78, 104).
Claim(s) 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takemoto (US 2012/0302340) in view of Gaiba (US 2012/0238365).
Claim 5: Takemoto teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the control setting is a control setting used by the information processing system when executing a plurality of types of first software. Takemoto at least teaches that various modifications and variations can be devised (¶ 148). Furthermore, an analogous art of Gaiba teaches a information processing system and/or method thereof wherein the control setting is a control setting used by the information processing system when executing a plurality of types of first software (¶ 39-42, 49 (plurality of different types of loadable video games), ¶ 51, 53-54 (settings of the games include number of players, difficulty, viewpoint, etc, wherein a user can pick the game and the settings are associated with each game), ¶ 67, Figs. 3, 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control setting of Takemoto such that the control setting is a control setting used by the information processing system when executing a plurality of types of first software as taught by Gaiba to provide a new way of interfacing with video games through immersivity (Gaiba- ¶ 3).
Claim 8: Takemoto teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the generated content includes audio content and wherein the control setting includes a setting to control one or more of: a volume of the audio content, a frequency of the audio content, a speed of the audio content, and/or a type of audio content. Takemoto at least teaches that various modifications and variations can be devised (¶ 148) and that generated content can include video and/or audio content of the video game (¶ 46, 55-56, 113). Furthermore, an analogous art of Gaiba teaches an information processing system and/or method thereof wherein the generated content includes audio content and wherein the control setting includes a setting to control one or more of: a volume of the audio content, a frequency of the audio content, a speed of the audio content, and/or a type of audio content (¶ 39-42, 54, 64, 67, Figs. 12, 15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control setting of Takemoto such that the control setting pertains to a setting to control at least a volume of the generated audio content as taught by Gaiba to provide a new way of interfacing with video games through immersivity (Gaiba- ¶ 3). Such a modification allows the user to adjust audio content to a preferred setting.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takemoto (US 2012/0302340) in view of Yeh (US 2022/0395747).
Claim 7: Takemoto teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the generated content includes video content and wherein the control setting includes a setting to control one of more of: a brightness of the video content, a colour of the video content, a contrast of the video content. Takemoto at least teaches that various modifications and variations can be devised (¶ 148) and that generated content can include video and/or audio content of the video game (¶ 46, 55-56, 113). Furthermore, an analogous art of Yeh teaches an information processing system and/or method thereof wherein the generated content includes video content and wherein the control setting includes a setting to control one of more of: a brightness of the video content, a colour of the video content, a contrast of the video content, and/or a resolution of the video content (Fig. 1, ¶ 3, 16-17, 59, emphasis on ¶ 59). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control setting of Takemoto such that the control setting pertains to a setting to control at least brightness of generated video content as taught by Yeh to provide a means of adjusting display settings during a game (Yeh - ¶ 59). Such a modification providing an immersive gaming experience (Yeh - ¶ 3).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takemoto (US 2012/0302340) in view of Wiggemans (US 2017/0206054).
Claim 10: Takemoto teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the second software includes a number of profiles and the method comprises updating, during execution of the first software, the value of a plurality of control settings in dependence upon a profile selected by the user. Takemoto at least teaches that various modifications and variations can be devised (¶ 148), that generated content can include video and/or audio content of the video game (¶ 46, 55-56, 113), and updating the, during execution of the first software, the value of a plurality of control settings (see above, control setting values such as the number of game participants and the difficulty level, (¶ 9, 26, 51-55, 65, 99-113, 115-117, 122-123). Furthermore, an analogous art of Wiggemans teaches an information processing system and/or method thereof wherein software includes a number of profiles and the method comprises updating, the value of a plurality of control settings in dependence upon a profile selected by the user (¶ 7-8, 23-26, 35, 37, 43, 54, emphasis on ¶ 54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the updating during execution of the first software of the value of a plurality of control settings of Takemoto such that the update is dependent upon a profile from a number of stored profiles selected by the user as taught by Wiggemans because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of alter control setting in which at least Takemoto is intended (see above). Such a modification a modification allows a user to adjust control settings without interrupting game play (Wiggemans - ¶ 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAMAR HARPER whose telephone number is (571)272-6177. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kang Hu can be reached at (571) 270-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TRAMAR HARPER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715